0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion

[Keith Martin]

In the creation account we are told God brought the woman to the man on the sixth day. When did they consumate their relationship and become one flesh? Just wondering.

Great question, Frederick. The answer can begin with, sometime before the conception of Cain, but they certainly weren't married immediately upon the moment that YHWH removed the female angular organs from Adam.

Come on Keith, you can do better than that. God brought the woman to the man; she was his; his companion and helper. Adam had the right to have a sexual relationship with Eve because she was his. The same with Joseph and Mary; she was his woman (Matt. 1:20); the woman of you (genitive of possession).

Well, if you believe I can do better, then I humbly request that you demonstrate by example. I believe I've made it plain that I'm uncertain that any of us have discovered The Dispositive Determination of the question of when marriage begins but that, until I am presented with something other than "penumbras formed by emanations" creating partial shadows from out-of-context scriptural anecdotes, I'm of the opinion that marriage begins at physical sexual consummation, the point at which a man and a woman become one flesh.

Therefore, when I write, "but they certainly weren't married immediately upon the moment that YHWH removed the female angular organs from Adam," I'm using 'married' in alignment with my assumption, but here's what confuses me: I was answering your question, which was, "When did they consumate their relationship and become one flesh?" Or did you intend for that sentence to essentially be two questions (When did they consummate their relationship? and When did they become one-flesh?) -- because the standard grammatical reading would determine, due to the conjunction 'and,' that the two (consummation and becoming one-flesh) were inextricably linked to the question of when. Are you asserting that they became one-flesh the moment that YHWH gave Eve to Adam? Or that the very moment He gave her to him, Adam uncovered Eve's naked nakedness and took her virginity? In any case, shifting from a question of consummation and one-fleshedness to determining when Eve became Adam's qualifies as a moving-the-goalposts red herring, because my post was not designed to be an answer to When did Eve start belonging to Adam?

So I'll repeat: please lead by example: are you asserting any of the following:

• That they were married either at the moment YHWH brought Eve back to Adam (Genesis 2:22) or at the moment when He told them to be fruitful and increase (Genesis 1:28)?
• That they became one-flesh immediately after 2:22 or 1:28?
• That they sexually consummated their relationship immediately after 2:22 or 1:28?
• That being one-flesh has some other meaning than sexual consummation?
• That the Creation account is dispositive for determining when marriage begins; e.g., are you saying that Adam and Eve's story is the model for all marriage?

And please give us scriptural references for you evidence for any of the above.

However, if you're not asserting anything along the lines of those 5 categories, what was the purpose of your wondering about when the first human beings consummated their relationship and became one flesh?

 

[Keith Martin]

I know I'm being hard on you, @Van, and I suspect that it's partially if not predominantly because you remind me of myself when I first started posting at Biblical Families.

I took your advise to first read all the pages of this thread, and also to browse related threads. If I had done this sooner, I would have known that this question has been discussed at length, over many many years, and going in circles. I really would like to find the answer to the question “when does marriage begin,” but not in this way.

I might need to apologize, then, because I've been operating under the assumption that you were telling us when marriage begins and had no idea that you were looking for an answer.

If someone posts something you already know, you can joyfully agree and even give a compliment

The problem with 'joyfully agreeing' and 'giving compliments' is that both are rewards, and, given that that which is rewarded will be repeated, it's counterproductive to reward already-repeated behaviors one doesn't want to reinforce. Personally, I'd prefer that you cease schooling us -- even if you have to do so by slamming us with some snark about how all we've done is go in circles -- over you continuing to behave like the guy who just wrote his first undergrad term paper on a subject thinking he's now qualified to correct everyone working on their masters theses.

I don't come here to play chump; I come here for fellowship. I do hope you'll stick around, but if you do you'll discover like many of us already have that it's not at all unusual for someone to show up here who doesn't even have the best interests of the organization at heart but presents as a know-it-all about one thing or another or sometimes even everything. If you're looking for grasshoppers, you might want to check out your local polyamory group and ask them if they have any members who are on the cusp of considering becoming Christians. If you're wanting to be a grasshopper, there are probably dozens of men here who might be willing to perform the Master Po role for you. If, on the other hand, you're sincere about wanting to be a man among equals, you'll have to balance your confidence with humility, because this isn't just kickball at recess.

 

[The Revolting Man]

If someone posts something you already know, you can joyfully agree and even give a compliment

I took your advise to first read all the pages of this thread, and also to browse related threads. If I had done this sooner, I would have known that this question has been discussed at length, over many many years, and going in circles. I really would like to find the answer to the question “when does marriage begin,” but not in this way.

What’s wrong with this way? We’ve examined a number of ideas over the years and found them to not be the answer. It’s a little messy but very effective, if not a little brutal. Which admittedly is a large part for be reason why I like it.
I’m very interested in know when you think marriage begins in God’s eyes. This is an important starting place.

 

[FollowingHim]

And round and round we go...

What is the point in writing this?

It was a prediction. The subsequent two pages proved the prediction accurate.

this question has been discussed at length, over many many years, and going in circles

I will post a new thread with a completely fresh angle on the "one flesh" statement shortly. This might help to resolve it. (Edit: new thread here).

In the meantime, I have found that if you stop actually trying to actually answer the question of "when does marriage begin", forget about the word "marriage" entirely and stop trying to define it, everything actually makes complete sense. A betrothed woman is a woman who has contractual obligations to a man (and him to her). A man who sleeps with a virgin has a scriptural obligation to commit to her permanently. People must practice fidelity - have sex with the man/woman they are committed to, and not with others. Everything all makes sense once you throw out the word "marriage" (as shocking as that sounds to our Christian cultured ears).

The problem is that we have this word "marriage", and then we try to shoehorn every mention of a relationship in scripture either into the "marriage" box or out of the "marriage" box. We are trying to interpret the Hebrew and Greek from an English perspective (or in other European languages with the same issue) - and that's the fundamental problem. In reality, there is no such word in scripture (there are words occasionally translated "marriage" but they more accurately mean "wedding"). Scripture just talks about men and women. When this is translated into English as "husband" or "wife", we then layer the English word "marriage" overtop, and then start arguing about these English words.

We're looking at it all wrong to begin with.

I write this as the person who actually started the thread, and now realise that the thread asks the wrong question, and it is that question itself that causes the conversation to go round and round in circles. So you could say it's all my fault!

 

[Pacman]

It was a prediction. The subsequent two pages proved the prediction accurate.

I will post a new thread with a completely fresh angle on the "one flesh" statement shortly. This might help to resolve it.

In the meantime, I have found that if you stop actually trying to actually answer the question of "when does marriage begin", forget about the word "marriage" entirely and stop trying to define it, everything actually makes complete sense. A betrothed woman is a woman who has contractual obligations to a man (and him to her). A man who sleeps with a virgin has a scriptural obligation to commit to her permanently. People must practice fidelity - have sex with the man/woman they are committed to, and not with others. Everything all makes sense once you throw out the word "marriage" (as shocking as that sounds to our Christian cultured ears).

The problem is that we have this word "marriage", and then we try to shoehorn every mention of a relationship in scripture either into the "marriage" box or out of the "marriage" box. We are trying to interpret the Hebrew and Greek from an English perspective (or in other European languages with the same issue) - and that's the fundamental problem. In reality, there is no such word in scripture (there are words occasionally translated "marriage" but they more accurately mean "wedding"). Scripture just talks about men and women. When this is translated into English as "husband" or "wife", we then layer the English word "marriage" overtop, and then start arguing about these English words.

We're looking at it all wrong to begin with.

I write this as the person who actually started the thread, and now realise that the thread asks the wrong question, and it is that question itself that causes the conversation to go round and round in circles. So you could say it's all my fault!

Exactly!

"this thing we call marriage" is master and bond servant in the scriptures.

 

[frederick]

So you could say it's all my fault!

Ok, I'll say it. It's all you fault!

 

[DontheBeeMan]

Ok can we agree Men are representatives of Adam and women are reps of Eve and that Adams Rib was pulled from his side and Eve was created from Man by God so then are not women also equal in the blessing and the curses so where is it that wone are the Bondservents to Man go to the creation of the Garden of Eden llok at gen 2 vs 18-20 that was not enough so God caused deep sleep and took 1 of his ribs bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh gen 2 vs 24they shall be one flesh nothing about her being a bond servent both equal

 

[FollowingHim]

Ok can we agree Men are representatives of Adam and women are reps of Eve and that Adams Rib was pulled from his side and Eve was created from Man by God

Agreed

so then are not women also equal in the blessing and the curses so where is it that wone are the Bondservents to Man go to the creation of the Garden of Eden llok at gen 2 vs 18-20 that was not enough so God caused deep sleep and took 1 of his ribs bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh gen 2 vs 24they shall be one flesh nothing about her being a bond servent both equal

They are of equal value, but with different roles. Eve was created as a "suitable helper" for Adam (Genesis 2:18). 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 confirms that this distinction in role existed from the moment of creation, and the method of creation shows us that distinction:
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Adam was Eve's head, and responsible for what happened in his family. Which is why we are told that "by one man sin entered into the world" (Romans 5:12) - although Eve actually sinned first, both her and Adam's sin is blamed on Adam, it was his responsibility, because he was the head.

So, how would we describe this hierarchical role (NOT value, just role)? One suitable illustration is that of a bondservant. A modern example of a bondservant is a person whose university education has been paid for by a company, on condition that they work for that company for a certain number of years after graduation. They are under a "master" (their boss), and can't just choose to leave that master whenever they want (they are "bound"). Such arrangements were more common in the past and very common in Biblical times. This illustration of marriage is very Biblical, for instance 1 Peter 3:6: "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord (master)". And Jesus frequently used the servant relationship to illustrate the relationship between Christians and Himself, and also used marriage to illustrate that same relationship, showing they are extremely similar.

If you are defining a word, you have to not use that word in its own definition. If you're going to define marriage, you have to pick different words to define it with. @Pacman has defined marriage using the illustration of a bondservant. It's a very biblical definition.

Maybe you are reading "bondservant", thinking "slave", and imagining cotton-picking and whips? You might just not have understood what a bondservant is. Imagine a worker who is contractually bound to stay in their employment for a certain term, and you'll have a much clearer picture.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Ok can we agree Men are representatives of Adam and women are reps of Eve and that Adams Rib was pulled from his side and Eve was created from Man by God so then are not women also equal in the blessing and the curses so where is it that wone are the Bondservents to Man go to the creation of the Garden of Eden llok at gen 2 vs 18-20 that was not enough so God caused deep sleep and took 1 of his ribs bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh gen 2 vs 24they shall be one flesh nothing about her being a bond servent both equal

Well we know that they’re not equal in curses because men and women have different ones to contend with.

 

[DontheBeeMan]

If they have one flesh now that they are bonded do they not also share the same curse in most instances except for the one God points out too both Eve and Adam remember he drove both of them from the Garden
and Jesus paid the price of Sin for us all so yes Adam has to till the ground and eve has pain in child birth but when we become one flesh we are one just a thought

 

[FollowingHim]

If they have one flesh now that they are bonded do they not also share the same curse in most instances except for the one God points out too both Eve and Adam remember he drove both of them from the Garden
and Jesus paid the price of Sin for us all so yes Adam has to till the ground and eve has pain in child birth but when we become one flesh we are one just a thought

When God gave those separate curses to Adam and Eve, they were already one flesh. Why would he have given separate curses to both "sides" of that one-flesh, if the curses all applied to both of them? Why not just give a singular list of curses to the collective Adam-Eve one-flesh entity? The fact he gave separate curses when they were already one flesh shows that the concept of "one flesh" has no relevance to who the curses apply to.

But we can also see that logically. Men can't suffer from the pain of childbirth - men cannot actually suffer from much of the curse of the woman. But women can very readily suffer from the curses given to man (difficulty in growing food etc.) if their men do not provide for them.

So if we say that both men and women are subject to the curses, we are actually saying that men are only subject to the curse on the men, but women are subject to all the curses. So women are cursed more than men.

That is the curse of feminism - give women the "freedom" to work in male-dominated professions - and within a generation or two they find that they are cursed with the necessity to work simply to survive. Which is why feminism is ultimately anti-women.

But I digress...

 

[Pacman]

Ok can we agree Men are representatives of Adam and women are reps of Eve and that Adams Rib was pulled from his side and Eve was created from Man by God so then are not women also equal in the blessing and the curses so where is it that wone are the Bondservents to Man go to the creation of the Garden of Eden llok at gen 2 vs 18-20 that was not enough so God caused deep sleep and took 1 of his ribs bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh gen 2 vs 24they shall be one flesh nothing about her being a bond servent both equal

The entire balance of scripture says she is his bond servant.

Genesis 20:3 is God himself saying it to Abimelech. (look at the Hebrew word translated into English as married)

 

[Matthew Hudson]

[QUOTE="FollowingHim, post: 143825, member: I see four basic answers to "When does marriage begin?", and I have a thread for each position.
1) Sex forms a marriage (if you have sex you are married by default, unless you were ineligible to marry)
2) Covenant forms a marriage (marriage is formed by contract / agreement / covenant / consent, sex may then occur within marriage)
3) Possession / Either forms a marriage (if you have a woman and nobody else objects, she's your wife)
4) Both form a marriage (only once you have a covenant, and have consummated it with sex, are you married).[/QUOTE]

The question is a good one, but look at it a different way. At what point does sleeping with another man become adultery? Something has to be adulterated. If marriage means to blend together, then that blending must be completed for there to be an adulteration of it.

Joseph could have put Mary away quietly for being pregnant, but he chose not to. By the law, she had presented proof of adultery.
Adultery could be considered sleeping with someone already promised to another. I'll find the verses if I need to.

Then it gets a little complicated.

See, if a seed exchange is needed, and the couple use a condom, has sex happened if there is no adulteration of the bond?

These kinds of discussions are fun to engage in, but it boils down to this for me. It's fun to talk about it. I considered my marriage a marriage the moment I negotiated our agreement, and then declared that she was my wife and she accepted that declaration. I had a mix of our lives worked out, and a public proclamation of that fact with her agreement. We were bonded? Not quite, that would happen a few hours later. But truly, does it matter?

 

[FollowingHim]

Welcome @Matthew Hudson!

These kinds of discussions are fun to engage in, but it boils down to this for me. It's fun to talk about it. I considered my marriage a marriage the moment I negotiated our agreement, and then declared that she was my wife and she accepted that declaration. I had a mix of our lives worked out, and a public proclamation of that fact with her agreement. We were bonded? Not quite, that would happen a few hours later. But truly, does it matter?

For people who follow the recommended Christian path of having a wedding then consummating the marriage a few hours later - no, it really doesn't matter when the marriage began. It didn't exist that morning and it does exist by the next day, which hour it technically began is irrelevant.

Where it matters is for people who have not followed that ideal pathway into marriage. People who have had messy pasts.

• A person who has been living with a partner for a few years, then becomes a Christian and looks at their life differently. Are they married? If their partner refuses to "marry" them but is happy to keep living with them, what should they do?
• A man who has slept with a number of different women over the years, then wants to understand what God thinks of his life and obey God. Does he have obligations to these women? Are they his wives already? Is he required to make them his wives?
• A woman who has slept with a number of different men. Does God consider one to be her husband? If so, which one?

And so forth. This is where the standard advice of the church breaks down. Christians are taught, rightly, to save sex for marriage and then have a wedding and stay together for life. If you do that, great. But if you haven't done that, you may need to understand this in a bit more detail.

Fundamentally, this debate exists to help answer the question of "what does repentance (turning from sin and following righteousness) actually look like for a specific individual in their unique circumstances?"

 

[frederick]

Welcome @Matthew Hudson. Glad to have you aboard.

But truly, does it matter?

Welcome @Matthew Hudson!

For people who follow the recommended Christian path of having a wedding then consummating the marriage a few hours later - no, it really doesn't matter when the marriage began. It didn't exist that morning and it does exist by the next day, which hour it technically began is irrelevant.

Where it matters is for people who have not followed that ideal pathway into marriage. People who have had messy pasts.

• A person who has been living with a partner for a few years, then becomes a Christian and looks at their life differently. Are they married? If their partner refuses to "marry" them but is happy to keep living with them, what should they do?
• A man who has slept with a number of different women over the years, then wants to understand what God thinks of his life and obey God. Does he have obligations to these women? Are they his wives already? Is he required to make them his wives?
• A woman who has slept with a number of different men. Does God consider one to be her husband? If so, which one?

And so forth. This is where the standard advice of the church breaks down. Christians are taught, rightly, to save sex for marriage and then have a wedding and stay together for life. If you do that, great. But if you haven't done that, you may need to understand this in a bit more detail.

Fundamentally, this debate exists to help answer the question of "what does repentance (turning from sin and following righteousness) actually look like for a specific individual in their unique circumstances?"

This gets all the more difficult when children have been born into those situations where a couple has "lived together" but split up, and then another man has produced additional children with the woman. We need to be able to answer the hard questions: Is/was she "married" to either of the men; has she/he committed adultery? What should happen if any of them become Christians - and especially for the woman and the children? If she has not been legally "married", can a Christian man take her to be his? Can she be divorced and remarried? What kind of encouragement can we, as men of God, give to such people?

These are very difficult questions but they deal with real people in real-life situations - and the number of people is not small. For me, yes it matters as I see so much heartache and loneliness with the women.

 

[fadi]

I have always been under the impression that marriage rules for women is very different from marriage rules for men according to God anyway. In ancient times it was fathers who gave their daughters in marriage today a girl just decides to give her virginity to a boy in her class with no intention of being in a long term relationship let alone marriage. In biblical times if a man took a girl’s virginity he was required to marry her. Women also didn’t have the liberty to just walk out on their husbands like today. A man had to actually put away a woman for her to be divorced.

I think marriage today means something totally different than what’s actually in the bible. Adultery today even means something totally different to what God calls adultery. I think the question ‘When does marriage begin’ means something totally different today than it meant 2000 years ago. When Mary said yes to Joseph she became his wife. When Abigail said yes to David she became his wife. When Rebecca said yes to the servant of Abraham she became the wife of a man she hadn’t met yet, and the marriage was consummated by sex in the tent there was no wedding or marriage certificate.

Today the process of getting married is nothing like it was done in ancient times, today marriage means wedding and marriage certificate, but to God marriage is not exclusively defined by that. I think many men today are living with women who are not their wives, women who ran away from their husbands, even though they have done wedding and all that, just like David took his wife Michal back even though she was ‘married’ to another man she was his wife still, and many women are also living with men who are not their husbands but I guess God is the judge of us all.

 

[Pacman]

When Mary said yes to Joseph she became his wife. When Abigail said yes to David she became his wife. When Rebecca said yes to the servant of Abraham she became the wife of a man she hadn’t met yet,

Scripture doesn't say anything about the woman "saying yes" in any of these cases. The only one that resembles "saying yes" is Abigail and she seems to have just been informed and she willingly submitted... Also she was a widow which made her "her own boss" (Numbers 30)

Point is that scripturally in the case of a virgin it's an agreement between the father and the groom (or representative) not an agreement with the woman...

to God marriage is not exclusively defined by that.

Remove the word "exclusively" and this statement would be accurate.

 

[fadi]

Scripture doesn't say anything about the woman "saying yes" in any of these cases. The only one that resembles "saying yes" is Abigail and she seems to have just been informed and she willingly submitted... Also she was a widow which made her "her own boss" (Numbers 30)

I believe Rebekah was a virgin and she was asked to consent to the marriage and did say yes.
“And they called Rebekah. “Are you willing to go with this man?” they asked her. And she replied, “Yes, I will go.” Genesis 24:58

That said I’m just a woman not a theologian or grammar expert just trying to contribute with my limited knowledge I do apologise for the wrong English I may have used

 

[Pacman]

I believe Rebekah was a virgin and she was asked to consent to the marriage and did say yes.
“And they called Rebekah. “Are you willing to go with this man?” they asked her. And she replied, “Yes, I will go.” Genesis 24:58

That said I’m just a woman not a theologian or grammar expert just trying to contribute with my limited knowledge I do apologise for the wrong English I may have used

Look at the context. They were asking her about the timing of leaving. The decision that she was to be taken had already been made...

 

[Keith Martin]

The entire balance of scripture says she is his bond servant.

I have a question for you, @Pacman: the more I read Scripture, the more I think that you have a point about this master-and-servant thing, as well as that my general opinion that consummation is a marriage's starting point may need to be adjusted to consider consummation as an essential component but perhaps we may also need to include some type of agreement. And, @FollowingHim, I know you and I butt heads on a regular basis, but I promise no disrespect is meant by asserting the following: the title of this structured discussion you started is, "When does marriage begin?," but it occurs to me that your third choice is actually a non sequitur -- unless one's position is that a marriage only begins when the couple or someone else outside the couple notices that no one has objected to their coupleness. It can't possibly be the case that marriage begins when someone says, "Hey, duh, we've been hanging out together and have a couple kids and no one has objected -- I guess we're married, ain't we!"

So we need to cross that off the list, which leaves us with a list of three -- which may not be exhaustive, but until someone adds a new possibility we're working with these possible answers:

1. Consummative sex
2. Covenant (contract/agreement/consent)
3. Both consummation and covenant

So here's the question(s), @Pacman (and anyone else), because I'm drawing a blank on this: can you point me to an example of a biblical situation in which a betrothed woman became a widow before the relationship with her betrothed man was consummated? That is, would a betrothed woman become a widow in such a situation, and would she thus be subject to inheritance, etc., guidelines based on being a member of her betrothed man's family? Would her betrothed man's brother be expected to marry her and assist her in producing a child who would be considered the heir of her deceased betrothed man according to the levirate law? Or would she be released from the betrothal, return to her father's family, and become entirely available for marriage with another man?

I also have another, somewhat different, question for you, @Pacman: it does seem clear to me that, in ancient society and specifically in ancient Israelite society, marriages were arranged by contract between, on the one hand, (a) either the man in question or his father, and, on the other hand, (b) the father of the proposed bride or the father's representative. Given that that was the case, and given that that is no longer the case, as well as that, outside of moving to a country that enforces sharia law, we have no framework within which we could legally require adherence to such a framework, how would you suggest we can, in the 21st century, come closest to establishing marriages in the eyes of Elohim according to His Word? Along with that, given the realities of current-day life, is there now a different answer to, "When does marriage begin?," than there was in biblical times?

Also, and this one isn't for @Pacman but for those who asserted their existence and from whom I'm unaware of any response . . .

I'm still patiently waiting for the scriptures that (a) detail what YHWH does that joins man and woman together in marriage and (b) demonstrate that one-flesh either has nothing to do with sex or isn't the essential behavior that initiates marriage.